Why is 'pro-terrorist' considered a democratic position?

[MaggieMae]

I don't think in a civilized society there is ever a case where terrorism is excusable.

So when I hear "progressives" making excuses for it (usually blaming American policies) I tend to think they just might be a tad soft on the whole idea.....maybe that's just me, eh?

Or when you get news of another terror attack, the Liberals (the MSM) always warn us not to jump to conclusions....despite the hypocrisy that they jump to conclusions whenever they think they just might be able to pin it on a right-leaning culprit (ie: Arizona shootings).

Right now the Germans are calling the attack on our Airmen a terror attack, but he Administration is being slow to just come out and say the obvious.

Heck, they don't even want to call them terror attacks anymore!!!

And you don't work for the State Department, where every word uttered by the United States has the possibility of putting us in even greater jeopardy.

 

[TheSeeker]

Maybe saying they are "pro-terrorist" is a bit over the top, but perhaps it has something to do with Liberals constantly excusing terrorism as if there is a valid excuse for it.

I see that happening only when some yahoo tries to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists. Of course they aren't.

I'm not as sure about that as you are.

It didn't take very long after 911 that I heard Liberals blaming America for what happened that day.

You heard that even without the context of all Muslims being terrorists.

 

[TheSeeker]

I don't think in a civilized society there is ever a case where terrorism is excusable.

So when I hear "progressives" making excuses for it (usually blaming American policies) I tend to think they just might be a tad soft on the whole idea.....maybe that's just me, eh?

Or when you get news of another terror attack, the Liberals (the MSM) always warn us not to jump to conclusions....despite the hypocrisy that they jump to conclusions whenever they think they just might be able to pin it on a right-leaning culprit (ie: Arizona shootings).

Right now the Germans are calling the attack on our Airmen a terror attack, but he Administration is being slow to just come out and say the obvious.

Heck, they don't even want to call them terror attacks anymore!!!

And you don't work for the State Department, where every word uttered by the United States has the possibility of putting us in even greater jeopardy.

So saying they are "man-made disasters" instead of terror attacks somehow lessens it?

I seriously doubt that ANYTHING we label them would make one iota of difference to the actual terrorists.

 

[Immanuel]

Those who have suggested that this is a perception issue are largely correct. When one looks at the comments and actions of many Democrats after any particular terrorist attack there seems to be less outrage or emotional of a reaction from the Democrat end of the political spectrum. Regardless of whether this is due to condoning the acts or simply attepting to be more level-headed about what's going on, that produces a negative viewpoint in the minds of those citizens who are reacting in a more emotional fashion to these events.

Additionally, like the moderate Islamic community, we don't hear a whole lot of anti-terrorist rhetoric from the left end of the political spectrum. This is an issue where most average citizens do not take a moderate approach to things. They want to see people come out with a vocal, solidly anti-terrorist message and we do not see that very often from the Democratic Party or its members. Instead we see a lot of moderate, middle of the road commentaries from that group, and it leaves the perception that these people are largely noncommital, if not pro-terrorist.

Lastly, when one looks at the reactions of the different Presidents of the United States to terrorist activities on their watch (embassy bombings, the USS Cole incident, the first WTC attack, and then 9/11) you see VERY different levels of response from the US Government. That definitely leaves a sour taste in the mouths and viewpoint in the minds of most Americans.

Just my thoughts on the topic, for whatever they're worth.

To your first point, it isn't a matter of "condoning" the act, it's usually defending the mechanism for dealing with it. For example, the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber. The accusations flew that "Obama didn't do enough to prevent those kinds of acts, blah blah blah." He inherited the same policies and procedures of Homeland Security that were already in place, so it's rather stupid to play silly blame games like that.

I've been posting on this board for nearly two years, and I've only seen an occasional post by someone "condoning" terror activity and admonishing the United States. I used to post on the AOL board before that, and rarely saw it there either.

I think you need to stop jumping to conclusions.

I have to agree. It is generally the defense of our system of government and not the acts of terrorism. Like the statement, "innocent until proven guilty". I rarely see a left leaning (or right leaning for that matter) individual condone terrorist activities, but what I do see is people defending the constitutional rights that we have established to protect the innocent.

Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to convict one single innocent man. Well, maybe not every one agrees with that statement, but, put them in the shoes of the innocent man found guilty and I suspect they will quickly change their tune.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Maybe saying they are "pro-terrorist" is a bit over the top, but perhaps it has something to do with Liberals constantly excusing terrorism as if there is a valid excuse for it.

I see that happening only when some yahoo tries to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists. Of course they aren't.

I'm not as sure about that as you are.

It didn't take very long after 911 that I heard Liberals blaming America for what happened that day.

You heard that even without the context of all Muslims being terrorists.

"It didn't take that long"? That is a subjective term. It seems to me that after 9/11 we came together as a nation for a long time. It was the last time I remember really feeling like the citizens of this nation could actually come together and be a nation. I felt like it lasted almost a year. That very fact, gives me hope that despite all the crap we are going through today, we might actually remain a nation.

Note: that hope is dwindling, but not yet dead.

Immie

 

[Anachronism]

To your first point, it isn't a matter of "condoning" the act, it's usually defending the mechanism for dealing with it. For example, the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber. The accusations flew that "Obama didn't do enough to prevent those kinds of acts, blah blah blah." He inherited the same policies and procedures of Homeland Security that were already in place, so it's rather stupid to play silly blame games like that.

When I mention "condoning" these acts, I mean those who will come out with some sort of excuse or reasoning why the attack could be viewed as "appropriate" by the other side. So far as I'm concerned, Terrorism is the single lowest and most heinous type of act that an individual can commit. It is the most utterly despicable act in the world, in my mind. There is NEVER an appropriate reason to attack unarmed and defenseless civilian targets for political reasons. Regardless of whether it's the underwear or Times Square bombers, Timothy McVeigh, etc... I'd have at least had some small amount of respect for McVeigh if he'd walked into the building and shot it out with the FBI agents in their office there, but he didn't. He chose the cowards way, as all Terrorists do.

As for the policies.... so far as I'm concerned Americans have no idea what SECURITY is, and until we change that at every level, we're going to be an easy, soft target for any/all attacks on us.

I've been posting on this board for nearly two years, and I've only seen an occasional post by someone "condoning" terror activity and admonishing the United States. I used to post on the AOL board before that, and rarely saw it there either.

I see people all the time "condoning" these acts (at least in a theoretical sense) based on our foreign policy, our involvement in the middle east, our support of Israel, etc.... Maybe not so much here, but definitely other places that I've been.

I think you need to stop jumping to conclusions.

I think we all need to start to wake up to the realities of the world around us and get our heads into the game. Later this afternoon I will go out shopping, to dinner, and to a pool hall to watch a hockey game this evening. I'll do it carrying a knife, pepper spray, and a loaded handgun.

You know how many people will even notice that I'm armed as I spend probably 5-6 hours in public.... ALMOST NONE. Including most of the Security Guards and LEO's that I encounter.

You know how many other armed citizens I'll encounter..... Maybe a half dozen at most.

That's why these attacks will be able to happen again and we'll continue to live in fear.

 

[manifold]

I post troll bait and it morphs into a sincere and interesting discussion.

I can't decide if that makes it an epic win or an epic fail.

 

[TheSeeker]

I see that happening only when some yahoo tries to say that ALL Muslims are terrorists. Of course they aren't.

I'm not as sure about that as you are.

It didn't take very long after 911 that I heard Liberals blaming America for what happened that day.

You heard that even without the context of all Muslims being terrorists.

"It didn't take that long"? That is a subjective term. It seems to me that after 9/11 we came together as a nation for a long time. It was the last time I remember really feeling like the citizens of this nation could actually come together and be a nation. I felt like it lasted almost a year. That very fact, gives me hope that despite all the crap we are going through today, we might actually remain a nation.

Note: that hope is dwindling, but not yet dead.

Immie

It wasn't too long actually.

Remember: Ward Churchill wrote an essay in September 2001 entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". In it, he argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks were provoked by U.S. foreign policy. Further, he disputed the innocence of those working in the World Trade Center, comparing the role of financial workers in "ongoing genocidal American imperialism" to the role played by Adolf Eichmann in organizing the Holocaust.

 

[TheSeeker]

For example, the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber. The accusations flew that "Obama didn't do enough to prevent those kinds of acts, blah blah blah." He inherited the same policies and procedures of Homeland Security that were already in place, so it's rather stupid to play silly blame games like that.

Which lends itself to the discussion about hypocrisy.....

When many of the measures that George W. Bush implemented to keep us safer from acts of terror came into being, he was roundly opposed and called a dictator.

I don't know how many times I heard Liberals claim he was taking away their rights (although when asked to name one right that they personally felt was taken away, they never had an answer).

Now that there's a Democrat in the White House, for all intents and purposes carrying on the same policies, those same people are inexplicably silent.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm not as sure about that as you are.

It didn't take very long after 911 that I heard Liberals blaming America for what happened that day.

You heard that even without the context of all Muslims being terrorists.

"It didn't take that long"? That is a subjective term. It seems to me that after 9/11 we came together as a nation for a long time. It was the last time I remember really feeling like the citizens of this nation could actually come together and be a nation. I felt like it lasted almost a year. That very fact, gives me hope that despite all the crap we are going through today, we might actually remain a nation.

Note: that hope is dwindling, but not yet dead.

Immie

It wasn't too long actually.

Remember: Ward Churchill wrote an essay in September 2001 entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". In it, he argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks were provoked by U.S. foreign policy. Further, he disputed the innocence of those working in the World Trade Center, comparing the role of financial workers in "ongoing genocidal American imperialism" to the role played by Adolf Eichmann in organizing the Holocaust.

I didn't read Churchill's piece. Churchill is just one man and it took time for the numbness to wear down after 9/11. I think for the most part, the left was pretty much right there with President Bush really up until the beginning of the wars. My view of it was that things didn't really start to go back down hill until after the Iraq War began a year and a half after the attacks. It was then that I felt that the country began to fall apart again.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

For example, the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber. The accusations flew that "Obama didn't do enough to prevent those kinds of acts, blah blah blah." He inherited the same policies and procedures of Homeland Security that were already in place, so it's rather stupid to play silly blame games like that.

Which lends itself to the discussion about hypocrisy.....

When many of the measures that George W. Bush implemented to keep us safer from acts of terror came into being, he was roundly opposed and called a dictator.

I don't know how many times I heard Liberals claim he was taking away their rights (although when asked to name one right that they personally felt was taken away, they never had an answer).

Now that there's a Democrat in the White House, for all intents and purposes carrying on the same policies, those same people are inexplicably silent.

I consider myself moderately conservative. I opposed the Patriot Act too. Because I felt that someday down the road, we would have a Democratic President and the shoe would be on the other foot. Seems I was right, yet so far, things have not, yet, fallen apart... so far.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

I post troll bait and it morphs into a sincere and interesting discussion.

I can't decide if that makes it an epic win or an epic fail.

You're a winner, Manny. At least today. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[MaggieMae]

To your first point, it isn't a matter of "condoning" the act, it's usually defending the mechanism for dealing with it. For example, the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber. The accusations flew that "Obama didn't do enough to prevent those kinds of acts, blah blah blah." He inherited the same policies and procedures of Homeland Security that were already in place, so it's rather stupid to play silly blame games like that.

When I mention "condoning" these acts, I mean those who will come out with some sort of excuse or reasoning why the attack could be viewed as "appropriate" by the other side. So far as I'm concerned, Terrorism is the single lowest and most heinous type of act that an individual can commit. It is the most utterly despicable act in the world, in my mind. There is NEVER an appropriate reason to attack unarmed and defenseless civilian targets for political reasons. Regardless of whether it's the underwear or Times Square bombers, Timothy McVeigh, etc... I'd have at least had some small amount of respect for McVeigh if he'd walked into the building and shot it out with the FBI agents in their office there, but he didn't. He chose the cowards way, as all Terrorists do.

As for the policies.... so far as I'm concerned Americans have no idea what SECURITY is, and until we change that at every level, we're going to be an easy, soft target for any/all attacks on us.

I've been posting on this board for nearly two years, and I've only seen an occasional post by someone "condoning" terror activity and admonishing the United States. I used to post on the AOL board before that, and rarely saw it there either.

I see people all the time "condoning" these acts (at least in a theoretical sense) based on our foreign policy, our involvement in the middle east, our support of Israel, etc.... Maybe not so much here, but definitely other places that I've been.

I think you need to stop jumping to conclusions.

I think we all need to start to wake up to the realities of the world around us and get our heads into the game. Later this afternoon I will go out shopping, to dinner, and to a pool hall to watch a hockey game this evening. I'll do it carrying a knife, pepper spray, and a loaded handgun.

You know how many people will even notice that I'm armed as I spend probably 5-6 hours in public.... ALMOST NONE. Including most of the Security Guards and LEO's that I encounter.

You know how many other armed citizens I'll encounter..... Maybe a half dozen at most.

That's why these attacks will be able to happen again and we'll continue to live in fear.

Well I really think that our conduct in the Mideast should be separated out from acts of violent terrorism. There's diverse opinions on that, a whole 'nuther subject.

 

[TheSeeker]

It wasn't too long actually.

Remember: Ward Churchill wrote an essay in September 2001 entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". In it, he argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks were provoked by U.S. foreign policy. Further, he disputed the innocence of those working in the World Trade Center, comparing the role of financial workers in "ongoing genocidal American imperialism" to the role played by Adolf Eichmann in organizing the Holocaust.

I didn't read Churchill's piece. Churchill is just one man and it took time for the numbness to wear down after 9/11. I think for the most part, the left was pretty much right there with President Bush really up until the beginning of the wars. My view of it was that things didn't really start to go back down hill until after the Iraq War began a year and a half after the attacks. It was then that I felt that the country began to fall apart again.

Immie

Not really just "one man".

Remember that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was preaching that "America's Chickens Have Come Home To Roost" to a man that wasn't even yet a US Senator named Barack Obama.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm not as sure about that as you are.

It didn't take very long after 911 that I heard Liberals blaming America for what happened that day.

You heard that even without the context of all Muslims being terrorists.

"It didn't take that long"? That is a subjective term. It seems to me that after 9/11 we came together as a nation for a long time. It was the last time I remember really feeling like the citizens of this nation could actually come together and be a nation. I felt like it lasted almost a year. That very fact, gives me hope that despite all the crap we are going through today, we might actually remain a nation.

Note: that hope is dwindling, but not yet dead.

Immie

It wasn't too long actually.

Remember: Ward Churchill wrote an essay in September 2001 entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". In it, he argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks were provoked by U.S. foreign policy. Further, he disputed the innocence of those working in the World Trade Center, comparing the role of financial workers in "ongoing genocidal American imperialism" to the role played by Adolf Eichmann in organizing the Holocaust.

Do you know that very few households even knew about Ward Churchill? He became a brief news sensation because he became a hot topic on the Internet, period. There will ALWAYS be idiots like that, but they do NOT carry the general opinion of the other 300+ million of us.

 

[Immanuel]

It wasn't too long actually.

Remember: Ward Churchill wrote an essay in September 2001 entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". In it, he argued that the September 11, 2001 attacks were provoked by U.S. foreign policy. Further, he disputed the innocence of those working in the World Trade Center, comparing the role of financial workers in "ongoing genocidal American imperialism" to the role played by Adolf Eichmann in organizing the Holocaust.

I didn't read Churchill's piece. Churchill is just one man and it took time for the numbness to wear down after 9/11. I think for the most part, the left was pretty much right there with President Bush really up until the beginning of the wars. My view of it was that things didn't really start to go back down hill until after the Iraq War began a year and a half after the attacks. It was then that I felt that the country began to fall apart again.

Immie

Not really just "one man".

Remember that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was preaching that "America's Chickens Have Come Home To Roost" to a man that wasn't even yet a US Senator named Barack Obama.

Just curious, have you listened to the full sermon or just the soundbites? The words themselves seem pretty damning of the man, but someone (yes, a liberal) once linked me to an interview of the Rev. that completely changed my point of view of the man. At least in the interview, he didn't seem as all-fired up racist as he did in the soundbites from the "God Damn America" sermon. I am definitely NOT saying I would ever become a member of his church, but, after actually watching almost an hour of the interview conducted by Bill Moyers, I realized that the man was not the person that Fox News had made him out to be with 30 second soundbites here and there.

Immie

 

[TheSeeker]

This isn't the first political message board I've been a member of.

Ward Churchill and Jeremiah Wright are only two public examples that I can actually show a link to.

But the fact is that I heard (or read) "progressives", just normal everyday people, excuse acts of terror usually by blaming America in some fashion.

They also vehemently attacked Bush for measures he took to keep us safe....everyone knows that.

 

[MaggieMae]

For example, the underwear bomber or the Times Square bomber. The accusations flew that "Obama didn't do enough to prevent those kinds of acts, blah blah blah." He inherited the same policies and procedures of Homeland Security that were already in place, so it's rather stupid to play silly blame games like that.

Which lends itself to the discussion about hypocrisy.....

When many of the measures that George W. Bush implemented to keep us safer from acts of terror came into being, he was roundly opposed and called a dictator.

I don't know how many times I heard Liberals claim he was taking away their rights (although when asked to name one right that they personally felt was taken away, they never had an answer).

Now that there's a Democrat in the White House, for all intents and purposes carrying on the same policies, those same people are inexplicably silent.

I consider myself moderately conservative. I opposed the Patriot Act too. Because I felt that someday down the road, we would have a Democratic President and the shoe would be on the other foot. Seems I was right, yet so far, things have not, yet, fallen apart... so far.

Immie

The problem with the Patriot Act was, first, that people feared it was rushed through Congress and signed within a mere six weeks of the 911 attacks, and there was a lot in it that people (myself included) took issue with--such as the FBI having the authority to monitor an individual's library choices based solely on the title of a book. I didn't particularly want my name added to a "potential terrorist" list just because I borrowed a book that was triggered by some buzz word.

Eventually, it was amended to remove all the over-the-top stuff.

 

[TheSeeker]

You also I'm sure realize that Al Qaeda attacked us first while Bill Clinton was in office.

The 911 Commission later agreed that his approach to dealing with terrorism was weak. The wall that his administration erected between the CIA, NSA, and FBI actually caused our intelligence agencies not to share information that may well have prevented 911.....remember "connecting the dots"? Treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue only was also very lame. We also now know that his administration called-off air strikes that would have killed Bin Laden. The Clinton years saw our intelligence agencies gutted of "on the ground" intelligence because he didn't like the fact that sometimes you have to deal with unsavory characters to glean intelligence.

These are things that make one wonder about how serious Liberals are about combating terror.

 

[shintao]

You also I'm sure realize that Al Qaeda attacked us first while Bill Clinton was in office.

The 911 Commission later agreed that his approach to dealing with terrorism was weak. The wall that his administration erected between the CIA, NSA, and FBI actually caused our intelligence agencies not to share information that may well have prevented 911.....remember "connecting the dots"? Treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue only was also very lame. We also now know that his administration called-off air strikes that would have killed Bin Laden. The Clinton years saw our intelligence agencies gutted of "on the ground" intelligence because he didn't like the fact that sometimes you have to deal with unsavory characters to glean intelligence.

These are things that make one wonder about how serious Liberals are about combating terror.

Then when Bill attempted to protect the American people, the Retards refused to let his legislation pass, refused to take Bills investigations seriously, & are responsible for 911.

Another point, I notice the Retards are no longer interested in "saving face" anymore, but want desperately to get out of the ME? Sounds like they are supporting terrorists to ME, and wanting to embolden the enemy. You know in your heart we must stay there and continue the two US troop KIAs a day, or we are going to be called chicken for running off like the Russians did in defeat.